So 500 1s alone do NOT tell me anything- I need to have information about the entire process. Got it.

This from the doofus who gave us "design is a mechanism".

So sad. So very, very sad.

According to the dictionary, design is a mechanism. So don't blame me because you are too stupid to be able to read and understand a dictionary.

But "your" design isn't just design. It's also construction and you don't have a mechanism for that.

If you do, you might let Behe know, since he stated that he doesn't have a mechanism by which the "intelligent designer" acted.

BTW: Are you going to call gpuccio on his statement that

Quote

Again: we test dFSCI with a set of long enough strings. Some of them are designed and meaningful, some of them are generated randomly. We know the origin of each string (if it was designed or randomly originated) because we have direct knowledge of how they were produced. Then we take some independent observer, who knows nothing about the origin of the strings, and ask him to infer desing, or not, using the evaluation of dFSCI for those strings. He will recognize the designed strings, with 100% specificity.

Ya see, you told me when I asked you to do the same thing that my random vs. non-random string wasn't about ID.

Yet gpuccio is talking about it as though he could actually use ID to determine the difference between a random string and a designed string.

So Joe, is gpuccio wrong or do you need to go ask him how it's done?

Kevin, you ignorant dumbass- design refers to the construction part too.

And the design inference refers to what it takes an agency to produce vs what blind and undirected processes can do.

So please spare me your ignorance.

OK, so let me know when you write a letter to Michael Behe correcting him. I'd really like to read it.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

In his bullshit article on "Darwininian Evolution on a Chip", Kevin spews:

Quote

Michael Behe, in his book Edge of Evolution states that it is impossible for four mutations to happen in a gene to result in a improvement in the resulting protein. He uses the example of resistant malaria, where there are two mutations and states that this is the edge of evolution because there’s probability that these two mutations can’t happen in the same gene at the same time.

1- In a GENE, that means in a complete organism

So I'm intrepreting the word "gene" wrong?

Really... one gene is a complete organism? So, the gene that controls my ability to taste certain chemicals is also all that's needed to build my entire body?

Dang, the rest of the biological science need to figure this stuff out. (yes, I'm laughing at you)

Quote

2- In an organism the target space is much larger than this example

But we're not talking about an organism are we?

Just out of curiosity Joe, how many mutations does the average human have? Meaning, how many differences betwen a child's genes and the parents'?

Quote

3- This example the thing that requires changing gets mutated every time it is placed in the error-prone PCR

Oh, really, Mr. Math? Then tell us what it means for a function to be additive. Is f(x) = x+2 an additive function? :D

oleg make your case you lying piece of shit. IOW prove that I am using the word "additive" incorrectly as opposed to just spewing it.

You won't because you are just a lying loser.

Oh Joe, you're shaking again. You always get caught bluffing!

You faggots are the fucking bluffers. Obviously you cannot make a case that I am using the word "additive" incorrectly and it pisses you off taht you got caught lying.

yes that is just what i needed

Joe you know old buddy what you need to do is go and get you some degrees so that you can publish your ideas and the world can accept your authority. I mean, as compelling a case as "you faggots are the fucking bluffers" may be, I am yet hesitant to accept that this means that you have any clue what oleg is asking you whatsoever

but by all means rage on little buddy, we feast upon your butthurt as if it were the body and blood of the host. won't you do this in remembrance of me?

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

It took me about 3 minutes to hit up Wikipedia, find "additive function" and understand why Oleg's function that he asked Joe about wasn't additive.

Here's a hint Joe: An additive function doesn't mean that you add a number to another number.

You see, much like Biology, Chemistry and everything else, mathematics has some very specific definitions. They use words in ways that may be counter-intuitive. That means, your 'common sense' understanding of the terms is wrong.

You know, things like 'mol' and 'design' and 'super set'.

You really ought to learn what the words actually mean before trying to discuss them. I'll give you another hint. If you're using a word, in a particular context, then it's not us who have to use your definition. We're not wrong because we use the word correctly.

Come on Joe, tell all about mols again.

BTW: Are you busy writing that letter to Behe to tell him that ID is a mechanism. I hope you have the mechanism handy (here's a hint, a blueprint for a building is not a mechanism for constructing the building).

Or maybe you're writing a response to gpuccio about how he's wrong because ID can (try to) distinguish between random and non-random... after you told me that wasn't even required for ID.

It makes one almost think that you don't even understand ID... or that ID has too many definitions. Either way, your side is pretty much screwed.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

So now we can add a couple more things to the "things Joe knows nothing about" list.

Of course, given the evidence, I think we're justified in putting everything on the "things Joe knows nothing about" list. In the unlikely event that Joe shows any discernible skill or knowledge, we can remove an item or two from the list. But I think it's safe to write it in ink.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

So now we can add a couple more things to the "things Joe knows nothing about" list.

Of course, given the evidence, I think we're justified in putting everything on the "things Joe knows nothing about" list. In the unlikely event that Joe shows any discernible skill or knowledge, we can remove an item or two from the list. But I think it's safe to write it in ink.

for Bonus LULZ, re-write this syllogism in set notation

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

So now we can add a couple more things to the "things Joe knows nothing about" list.

Of course, given the evidence, I think we're justified in putting everything on the "things Joe knows nothing about" list. In the unlikely event that Joe shows any discernible skill or knowledge, we can remove an item or two from the list. But I think it's safe to write it in ink.

for Bonus LULZ, re-write this syllogism in set notation

I was thinking of writing it in a more explicitly Bayesian manner. Joe babbling on probability and statistics has a lot of potential.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

Joe: Remember, I cannot spend a lot of time policing and cleaning up threads. Kindly, restrain yourself. Namecalling and personal attacks are patently counter-productive: answer a fool according to his folly, and you will be as him, down in the mud of a fever swamp wrestling amidst the filth, where he can probably beat you on experience. Yes, I can see where a well warranted negative conclusion where someone has gone to the point where his/her behaviour goes to character is appropriate; but even in those cases, remember you are dealing with a human being and should not say anything you would not wish said about you in polite company. Thank you. KF

Quote

My aplogies kairosfocus, I lost my focus yesterday

A dim, obnoxious toady groveling in front of a hypocritical, sanctimonious windbag. Lovely.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Joe: Remember, I cannot spend a lot of time policing and cleaning up threads. Kindly, restrain yourself. Namecalling and personal attacks are patently counter-productive: answer a fool according to his folly, and you will be as him, down in the mud of a fever swamp wrestling amidst the filth, where he can probably beat you on experience. Yes, I can see where a well warranted negative conclusion where someone has gone to the point where his/her behaviour goes to character is appropriate; but even in those cases, remember you are dealing with a human being and should not say anything you would not wish said about you in polite company. Thank you. KF

Quote

My aplogies kairosfocus, I lost my focus yesterday

A dim, obnoxious toady groveling in front of a hypocritical, sanctimonious windbag. Lovely.

KF must love Joe. He could have said "Shut the Fuck Up!"*

* Of course, KF would have said it in 30,000 words, with numerous links to naked ladies and Sam Jackson.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Joe: Remember, I cannot spend a lot of time policing and cleaning up threads. Kindly, restrain yourself. Namecalling and personal attacks are patently counter-productive: answer a fool according to his folly, and you will be as him, down in the mud of a fever swamp wrestling amidst the filth, where he can probably beat you on experience. Yes, I can see where a well warranted negative conclusion where someone has gone to the point where his/her behaviour goes to character is appropriate; but even in those cases, remember you are dealing with a human being and should not say anything you would not wish said about you in polite company. Thank you. KF

Quote

My aplogies kairosfocus, I lost my focus yesterday

A dim, obnoxious toady groveling in front of a hypocritical, sanctimonious windbag. Lovely.

KF must love Joe. He could have said "Shut the Fuck Up!"*

* Of course, KF would have said it in 30,000 words, with numerous links to naked ladies and Sam Jackson.

KF (Two posts earlier in the same thread):

Quote

Here Toronto is being willfully misleading, hoping to profit by his misrepresentation being perceived as truth.

Quote

So, Toronto is being irresponsible and distractive.

Sadly, no surprise.

--------------Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

Joe: Remember, I cannot spend a lot of time policing and cleaning up threads. Kindly, restrain yourself. Namecalling and personal attacks are patently counter-productive: answer a fool according to his folly, and you will be as him, down in the mud of a fever swamp wrestling amidst the filth, where he can probably beat you on experience. Yes, I can see where a well warranted negative conclusion where someone has gone to the point where his/her behaviour goes to character is appropriate; but even in those cases, remember you are dealing with a human being and should not say anything you would not wish said about you in polite company. Thank you. KF

Quote

My aplogies kairosfocus, I lost my focus yesterday

A dim, obnoxious toady groveling in front of a hypocritical, sanctimonious windbag. Lovely.

i am sure that they meat in real life

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

It took me about 3 minutes to hit up Wikipedia, find "additive function" and understand why Oleg's function that he asked Joe about wasn't additive.

Here's a hint Joe: An additive function doesn't mean that you add a number to another number.

You see, much like Biology, Chemistry and everything else, mathematics has some very specific definitions. They use words in ways that may be counter-intuitive. That means, your 'common sense' understanding of the terms is wrong.

You know, things like 'mol' and 'design' and 'super set'.

You really ought to learn what the words actually mean before trying to discuss them. I'll give you another hint. If you're using a word, in a particular context, then it's not us who have to use your definition. We're not wrong because we use the word correctly.

Come on Joe, tell all about mols again.

BTW: Are you busy writing that letter to Behe to tell him that ID is a mechanism. I hope you have the mechanism handy (here's a hint, a blueprint for a building is not a mechanism for constructing the building).

Or maybe you're writing a response to gpuccio about how he's wrong because ID can (try to) distinguish between random and non-random... after you told me that wasn't even required for ID.

It makes one almost think that you don't even understand ID... or that ID has too many definitions. Either way, your side is pretty much screwed.

....erm ......you know his mouth has an IQ of maybe 90 but his brain's around 70?

If you are trying to teach him that solid water is the same as liquid water except for the enery level, you might be on a loser there.

If you explain it in terms of cooking he might get it.

e.g. Hey Joe, you're lower than a snakes vagina in a wagon rut. (That should get his attention)

Listen up kitchen boy. I think he speaks spanish so could try Pinche gringo culero ve a chingar a tu reputisima madre!

Ok Joe, we are now going to see how much information is in a cake.

Take one egg.Add it to a bowl.Add some flour, Add butter, Add sugar and Add another egg.

The laws ARE Joe. We don't have to know how they work to make use of them. No one knows exactly how mass warps spacetime to create what we call gravity. As has been stated several times, that doesn't stop anyone from using the known principles of gravity to determine a result.

Speaking of which, hey Joe. has anyone ever used a principle of ID to determine a result (other than 'it looks designed').

Since you have absolutely failed chemistry and brought up the concept of "information", I guess it's time to begin the test. Are you ready. This is going to be so much fun.

Joe, here are two DNA sequences. Since I know how big you are on context, I'll tell you a little bit about them. Both of the sequences are exactly the same length. Indeed, except for the bolded nucleotide, they are exactly the same. Both produce a protein that is required for humans to live. Both produce a slightly different form of that protein, but a person with either one will live a long live (all other things being equal... this protein won't prevent you from tearing you anus and bleeding to death while kicking yourself in the ass).

What I'd like is you to use some principles of ID to tell me something about these two sequences. Which came first? Which is more functional, etc.

However, because we both know that you will never do this. What I'd like you to do is define information and then tell us which sequence has more information. You get to pick which kind of information we talk about. We just need a definition so that we're all on the same page.

Feel free to compare them using grep (you do know what grep is right?)

BTW: While we're talking about it. I would like to remind you that using the known laws of science...

There is NOTHING that would prevent life from arising from non-live. Believe me, I've studied this for years. There's a lot of exciting research coming out. Not only is it possible, it is likely to have happened via multiple pathways.

Again, this is how science works. You make a claim, you support it.

My claim is that there is nothing in the laws of the universe that would prevent life coming from non-life. So far, 50 years of research and thousands of scientific papers support my views.

Your claim is that it is impossible. However, your requirements are hypocritical in that you demand stuff from science that you don't demand from your own notions. Again, you are making the claim that thousands of experiments are wrong. You support it.

All it takes is one experiment to prove me wrong, yet it hasn't ever happened yet. Why don't you learn what a mole is, get a degree in chemistry, and then do the experimental world to prove me wrong.

Oh that's right, your too scared it will alter your world view. You aren't interested in science, you are just interested in playing internet tough guy.

I fully expect you to run away from this challenge too.

Just out of curiosity Joe, you've had this to work on for about 6 months now. Any progress?

Just tell us ANYTHING about what ID says about these two (human) DNA sequences and how you determined it.

Anything at all1) Which came first?2) Which contains more information?3) Which one was designed?4) Which one is a mutated version of the other one?5) Which one has the greatest survival advantage?

Careful, there are more trick questions in there... (snicker)

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

"We were particularly excited about the actualization stage," Blount said. "The actual mutation involved is quite complex. It re-arranged part of the bacteria's DNA, making a new regulatory module that had not existed before. This new module causes the production of a protein that allows the bacteria to bring citrate into the cell when oxygen is present. That is a new trick for E. coli." The change was far from normal, Lenski said. "It wasn't a typical mutation at all, where just one base-pair, one letter, in the genome is changed," he said. "Instead, part of the genome was copied so that two chunks of DNA were stitched together in a new way. One chunk encoded a protein to get citrate into the cell, and the other chunk caused that protein to be expressed."

So you thought Joe couldn't possibly believe in anything more stupid than ID, Nazca alien runways and drinking bleach?

Oh ye of little TARD....

It's all just water at the end of the day, unless you freeze it of course :-)

--------------Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.